US KC-X Tanker Competition: Just Once More, Please
US DoD issues revised RfP for new US Air Force aerial tanker
09:59 GMT, February 25, 2010 defpro.com | Yesterday, US Air Force and Department of Defense (DoD) acquisition officials informed Congress and members of the press about a revised request for proposal (RfP) for the competition for a new aerial tanker. The officials claim that the RfP for the controversial KC-X programme, which is now entering its second attempt of finding a solution for the future of US Air Force air-refuelling, is designed to promote fair and open competition. However, it is still questionable if there will be any competition, as the Northrop Grumman-EADS consortium, having been awarded a contract in 2008 which prompted a protest from rival bidder Boeing, threatened that it would not solicit a bid should it be convinced that the competition is not fair.
The $50 billion programme to replace the ageing KC-135 Stratotanker US Air Force fleet has turned out to be a political-industrial marathon, with an exceptionally strong focus on the basic parameters and proceedings, rather than on the aircrafts’ performance. In particular, the Air Force, which has an urgent requirement for a new refuelling aircraft, was pushed to the limit of its patience. Putting it in a nutshell, then-Commander of the Air Mobility Command (AMC), General Arthur Lichte, exclaimed: “I don't care which tanker wins, I just need a new tanker!”
With the long awaited release of the final terms of the competition, the US officials have attempted to provide a more transparent process and answered 350 separate questions, as the Financial Times reported yesterday. The highly detailed RfP includes 372 mandatory requirements and incorporates 230 mostly technical charges in response to comments on a draft document issued in September. According to Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn III, the new RfP recognises the high stakes in the determination in terms of jobs as well as revenues and “buffeting” from both competitors, Boeing and the Northrop Grumman/EADS team.
According to different news reports, an EADS spokesman said the company would study the new terms when they were issued. Despite Northrop Grumman’s threat to withdraw from the competition, Defence Secretary Robert Gates expressed his hope that both competitors would participate in the bidding. In a step which might not be the wisest, EADS receives support from French Defence Minister Hervé Morin, urging Washington to give the consortium a fair chance. Defence experts have repeatedly expressed the opinion that the Northrop-Grumman/EADS solution would have a hard time in the competition due to the fact that a European industry partner is involved, while Boeing would appear to be the more “patriotic” choice. Since, during the first bidding EADS was omnipresent in the news promoting its solution wherever it could, it may be politically wiser to place Northrop Grumman into the public focus this time.
Should the transatlantic consortium decide to enter the race for a second time, it would do so with a strong platform. While both platforms are designed to meet the requirements of the Air Force, the KC-45 by far exceeds many of the requirements. In fact, the 2008 decision in favour of the KC-45 is primarily attributed to its capacity, carrying about 45,000 lbs more fuel than the current KC-135. As a consequence, Boeing used the delay in the competition to revise its strategy and put the larger 777 platform into the race. The Boeing 777-based tanker is comparable in size to the Airbus A330, which is the basic airframe of Northrop Grumman’s KC-45, but delivers 54,000 lbs, or 23 per cent more fuel.
In ongoing voting at defpro.com, the Northrop-Grumman/EADS solution maintains a significant lead with 54.29% over its competitor, Boeing. The latter received support by only 33.8% of the voters, while a mixed solution is favoured by 11.91% (see http://poll.fm/1ai5f). However, while this poll represents international opinions, the decision will be made in the US and will include (next to the requirements of the Air Force) domestic factors such as employment, distribution of the manufacturing activities, and the shaping of US aerospace industry’s future.
Nicolas von Kospoth
